Hi, * Pavel Machek (pa...@suse.cz) wrote: > On Tue 2009-01-13 15:43:07, Eric Sesterhenn wrote: > > * Chris Mason (chris.ma...@oracle.com) wrote: > > > On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 15:21 +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > when mounting an intentionally corrupted btrfs filesystem i get the > > > > following warning and bug message. The image can be found here > > > > www.cccmz.de/~snakebyte/btrfs.2.img.bck.bz2 > > > > > > Thanks for looking at things > > > > > > Aside from catching checksumming errors, we're not quite ready for > > > fuzzer style attacks. The code will be hardened for this but it isn't > > > yet. > > > > Does this mean i should stop trying to break it for now or are you > > interested > > in further reports? > > Does ext2/3 and vfat survive that kind of attacks? Those are 'in > production' and should survive it...
I regularly (once or twice a week) test 100 corrupted images of vfat, udf, msdos, swap, iso9660, ext2, ext3, ext4, minix, bfs, befs, hfs, hfs+, qnx4, affs and cramfs on each of my two test machines. They are all pretty stable, one remaining thing on my list i didnt have time to look into was an issue with fat (msdos) triggering a bug in buffer.c the other is a warning with ext4 in jbd2/checkpoint.c:166 If there is a filesystem you are interested in thats not on the list or that you want me to test a bit more, just let me know Greetings, Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
